Steven G. Percifield's Blog
January 29, 2014
State of the Union--It just doesn't add up
Watching President Obama's State of the Union Message I couldn't help but be impressed.
The man is a tremendous orator and a great politician; I consider that first trait to be admirable and that second one...not so much.
What he said was well-written, beautifully presented and, taken as a whole, of minimal substance or beneficial consequence. In fact, just like all of his economic policies during the over five years he has been in office, shaped as they are by his never having participated in the commerce he wants so much to control, they are designed to appeal to his political base despite their likely negative impact on the economy.
To wit: increasing the minimum wage.
It's like the TV commercial with the kids sitting around the adult: so more is better, right? How can anyone with any empathy for the plights of the hordes of unfortunates in our society argue with the concept of paying them more money than the "less than subsistence wages" their task-masters are forcing them to work for? Clearly a full-time, hard-working, conscientious adult, trying to support a family just can't do it on the measly current minimum wage of $7.25/hour--a paltry $15,000 per year. Let's consider the situations of these downtrodden folks.
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates. Among those, 3.8 million were paid at or below the Federal minimum wage: a little less than 3% of workers. How can they be paid less? A very large swath of minimum wage workers are exempted from the Federal minimum wage: among them, wait-persons in foodservice (who rely on tips), self-employed persons, certain types of at-home service providers, tutors, etc., etc. Assuming that these persons constitute 1/2 of minimum wage earners, those who would actually benefit from a minimum wage increase would total 1.9 million or just over 1% of all workers.
Of all current minimum wage workers, around half of them are between 16 and 24 years of age and still living at home and/or are students. They are not seeking a lifelong livelihood at their minimum wage job nor are they planning on raising a family with earnings from it. They are looking to offset some of their educational expenses or just looking for some spending money. In many cases, theirs' are one of multiple incomes in the household they share with their parents.
Based on the President's analogy of a minimum wage earner trying to support his or her family, an increase would affect approximately 950 thousand of them; about one half of one percent of all workers.
About 135 million Americans are employed. But, according to the Wall Street Journal, "Even among those in their prime working years between 25 and 64, the number not working has increased by about 1.8 million since 2008. That is on top of the 11.3 million who are officially unemployed (my italics)." The labor force participation rate (the number of available workers who actually had jobs) as of the third quarter of 2013 stood at the lowest level since the 1970s, a mere 63.2%. In other words, 36.8% of available working age adults were unemployed whether they were looking for work or not. It must be assumed that many (if not most) of these persons wanted to work but could not find jobs.
Clearly, employment for 36.8% of working age Americans is of higher priority than raising the minimum wage for the 0.5% who are trying to support a family with a minimum wage job.
But that is not going to be done without an increase in overall commerce.
Our President, apparently, does not see it that way.
The man is a tremendous orator and a great politician; I consider that first trait to be admirable and that second one...not so much.
What he said was well-written, beautifully presented and, taken as a whole, of minimal substance or beneficial consequence. In fact, just like all of his economic policies during the over five years he has been in office, shaped as they are by his never having participated in the commerce he wants so much to control, they are designed to appeal to his political base despite their likely negative impact on the economy.
To wit: increasing the minimum wage.
It's like the TV commercial with the kids sitting around the adult: so more is better, right? How can anyone with any empathy for the plights of the hordes of unfortunates in our society argue with the concept of paying them more money than the "less than subsistence wages" their task-masters are forcing them to work for? Clearly a full-time, hard-working, conscientious adult, trying to support a family just can't do it on the measly current minimum wage of $7.25/hour--a paltry $15,000 per year. Let's consider the situations of these downtrodden folks.
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates. Among those, 3.8 million were paid at or below the Federal minimum wage: a little less than 3% of workers. How can they be paid less? A very large swath of minimum wage workers are exempted from the Federal minimum wage: among them, wait-persons in foodservice (who rely on tips), self-employed persons, certain types of at-home service providers, tutors, etc., etc. Assuming that these persons constitute 1/2 of minimum wage earners, those who would actually benefit from a minimum wage increase would total 1.9 million or just over 1% of all workers.
Of all current minimum wage workers, around half of them are between 16 and 24 years of age and still living at home and/or are students. They are not seeking a lifelong livelihood at their minimum wage job nor are they planning on raising a family with earnings from it. They are looking to offset some of their educational expenses or just looking for some spending money. In many cases, theirs' are one of multiple incomes in the household they share with their parents.
Based on the President's analogy of a minimum wage earner trying to support his or her family, an increase would affect approximately 950 thousand of them; about one half of one percent of all workers.
About 135 million Americans are employed. But, according to the Wall Street Journal, "Even among those in their prime working years between 25 and 64, the number not working has increased by about 1.8 million since 2008. That is on top of the 11.3 million who are officially unemployed (my italics)." The labor force participation rate (the number of available workers who actually had jobs) as of the third quarter of 2013 stood at the lowest level since the 1970s, a mere 63.2%. In other words, 36.8% of available working age adults were unemployed whether they were looking for work or not. It must be assumed that many (if not most) of these persons wanted to work but could not find jobs.
Clearly, employment for 36.8% of working age Americans is of higher priority than raising the minimum wage for the 0.5% who are trying to support a family with a minimum wage job.
But that is not going to be done without an increase in overall commerce.
Our President, apparently, does not see it that way.
February 15, 2012
The inherent conflict in union organization of government employees
There were very good reasons for the creation of labor unions back in the day.
The best example I can think of is the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers). Ill-trained, underpaid, under-equipped and ignorant of the dangers of the product with which they worked, linemen--before the IBEW--were at the mercy of the companies whose goal was electrifying America.
Electrocuting Americans (several hundred workers a year at the peak) did not seem to pose a problem for the companies--it was simply a part of doing business. Labor was, after all, cheap and plentiful...and very replaceable.
With the combined clout of union organization, government regulation and a changing culture, the travesties which characterized the trade were largely put behind; well equipped, well trained and well compensated careers became the norm, with death and serious injury on the job becoming increasingly rare.
The situation evolved, likewise, for industrial workers--auto workers are a prime example. Originally, safety and working conditions were the primary concerns (as well as pay). Getting stuck in the "gears of commerce" was more than just a metaphor.
Even though Ford Motor Company paid higher industrial wages than virtually any company in the country early on, it still became unionized. It can be argued that the UAW having already organized GM and then Chrysler back in the 30s, recognized that it could not continue to exist if Ford had a labor advantage over its organized competitors. A Ford advantage would put GM and Chrysler (and the UAW) out of business whether Ford's workers were in need of representation or not. After a bloody organization drive in which Union goons and Company thugs fought genuine battles, our government stepped in to quell the violence and American auto industry unionization was complete.
Long after the wheels of commerce ceased running over auto workers on a regular basis (minimizing job safety as a negotiating priority) the UAW continued its efforts to get more and more for its members in terms of wages and benefits. It succeeded. American auto workers' wages and benefits were the envy of laborers everywhere.
The Big 3, who all shared the same extremely generous labor contract, had only one another to compete against in their mandates to return profit to their shareholders. They did so by raising prices until they met with consumer resistance. Deprived of that avenue, they turned to reductions in the costs of their products. This cheapening (as well as shoddy workmanship) largely resulted in the abysmal product quality offered by the Big 3 in the 70s and 80s.
Ironically, the greed of the UAW opened the door to the most conservative of American economic principals--free market competition. Even more ironically, that competition came from non-American sources. It can be argued that the veritable plethora of foreign manufacturers available today in the US auto market is a direct result of the union's ability to hold the US auto manufacturers hostage in the name of securing more and more wages and benefits for its members.
Market forces, eventually, are inescapable. The can be delayed or end-run but eventually they will overtake and overwhelm.
I saw a study the other day which concluded that in terms of the value of total compensation--pay and benefits (medical, retirement, paid vacation days, sick leave, etc., etc., etc.)--government workers make on average 50% more than persons doing comparable skill-level work in private industry. In addition, they have far, far greater job security as governments don't go out of business and are EXTREMELY unlikely to fire anyone.
An analogy I heard recently: for a quick comparison of the ethics of private industry versus government walk into an auto dealership--sales people will likely fall all over one another in their efforts to get to you. Now walk in to a Bureau of Motor Vehicles or Secretary of State office to get a license for that car...did you see a difference?
The fact that government employees are primarily union members is a testament to the benefits afforded by collective bargaining and professional negotiating come contract time.
The inherent conflict though is this: governments do no go out of business. In the private sector, a union can only provide as much benefit as it's members' employers can afford to pay. If they surpass this limit--without some kind of outside help--the employer goes out of business and the employees (and ultimately the union) find themselves "out on the street."
In the public sector, on the other hand, if unions demand so much that the government can't afford it, the government doesn't go out of business: it just raises taxes taking more of our money to pay its employees...or it settles for a state of anarchy like we currently see in Greece.
Hello Illinois--are you listening?
The best example I can think of is the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers). Ill-trained, underpaid, under-equipped and ignorant of the dangers of the product with which they worked, linemen--before the IBEW--were at the mercy of the companies whose goal was electrifying America.
Electrocuting Americans (several hundred workers a year at the peak) did not seem to pose a problem for the companies--it was simply a part of doing business. Labor was, after all, cheap and plentiful...and very replaceable.
With the combined clout of union organization, government regulation and a changing culture, the travesties which characterized the trade were largely put behind; well equipped, well trained and well compensated careers became the norm, with death and serious injury on the job becoming increasingly rare.
The situation evolved, likewise, for industrial workers--auto workers are a prime example. Originally, safety and working conditions were the primary concerns (as well as pay). Getting stuck in the "gears of commerce" was more than just a metaphor.
Even though Ford Motor Company paid higher industrial wages than virtually any company in the country early on, it still became unionized. It can be argued that the UAW having already organized GM and then Chrysler back in the 30s, recognized that it could not continue to exist if Ford had a labor advantage over its organized competitors. A Ford advantage would put GM and Chrysler (and the UAW) out of business whether Ford's workers were in need of representation or not. After a bloody organization drive in which Union goons and Company thugs fought genuine battles, our government stepped in to quell the violence and American auto industry unionization was complete.
Long after the wheels of commerce ceased running over auto workers on a regular basis (minimizing job safety as a negotiating priority) the UAW continued its efforts to get more and more for its members in terms of wages and benefits. It succeeded. American auto workers' wages and benefits were the envy of laborers everywhere.
The Big 3, who all shared the same extremely generous labor contract, had only one another to compete against in their mandates to return profit to their shareholders. They did so by raising prices until they met with consumer resistance. Deprived of that avenue, they turned to reductions in the costs of their products. This cheapening (as well as shoddy workmanship) largely resulted in the abysmal product quality offered by the Big 3 in the 70s and 80s.
Ironically, the greed of the UAW opened the door to the most conservative of American economic principals--free market competition. Even more ironically, that competition came from non-American sources. It can be argued that the veritable plethora of foreign manufacturers available today in the US auto market is a direct result of the union's ability to hold the US auto manufacturers hostage in the name of securing more and more wages and benefits for its members.
Market forces, eventually, are inescapable. The can be delayed or end-run but eventually they will overtake and overwhelm.
I saw a study the other day which concluded that in terms of the value of total compensation--pay and benefits (medical, retirement, paid vacation days, sick leave, etc., etc., etc.)--government workers make on average 50% more than persons doing comparable skill-level work in private industry. In addition, they have far, far greater job security as governments don't go out of business and are EXTREMELY unlikely to fire anyone.
An analogy I heard recently: for a quick comparison of the ethics of private industry versus government walk into an auto dealership--sales people will likely fall all over one another in their efforts to get to you. Now walk in to a Bureau of Motor Vehicles or Secretary of State office to get a license for that car...did you see a difference?
The fact that government employees are primarily union members is a testament to the benefits afforded by collective bargaining and professional negotiating come contract time.
The inherent conflict though is this: governments do no go out of business. In the private sector, a union can only provide as much benefit as it's members' employers can afford to pay. If they surpass this limit--without some kind of outside help--the employer goes out of business and the employees (and ultimately the union) find themselves "out on the street."
In the public sector, on the other hand, if unions demand so much that the government can't afford it, the government doesn't go out of business: it just raises taxes taking more of our money to pay its employees...or it settles for a state of anarchy like we currently see in Greece.
Hello Illinois--are you listening?
November 6, 2011
Democritization and the Age of Aquarius via the internet
Somewhere back in ancient history--1963 or so, I believe--a wise Canadian educator/philosopher/futurist/scholar/critic/guru named Marshall McLuhan, well know for his quotable observations, dropped a real pearl explaining why the commercial television networks were filled with garbage programming: "The medium is the message" (my Italics).
As I understood it, he was saying that it really didn't matter what was broadcast; Since viewers were so enamored with the concept of images broadcast over thin air appearing in their homes, they would watch whatever crap was on "the tube." Gilligan's Island was actually a study conducted by University of Chicago sociologists to confirm or disprove McLuhan's theory. It was proven beyond a doubt.
Of even more importance, however, is the fact that unless it appeared to have commercial potential, Gilligan's Island wouldn't have ever appeared in the first place. And unless it delivered commercial value, it would not have remained in production for nearly 100 episodes and on the air (in syndication) for nearly half a century. While the medium was the message, it was a damned expensive medium making the message likewise. The obtaining of commercial sponsorship was the prerequisite to the production and broadcast of almost everything.
Since the advent of mass communications, this has pretty much been the way it has worked.
Gutenberg's printing press with movable type, dating back to the early-mid 1400s, permitted virtually anything that could be printed to be mass-produced and massively disseminated. As the masses, however, were largely illiterate at the time, the democratizing influence of open and massive communication--although a great leap forward--was somewhat impeded. The writings of authors of the time--the clergy, the ruling class and landed gentry--could only be read by the readers of the time--the clergy, the ruling class and the landed gentry. Due in no small part to the efforts of the church (which felt a moral imperative for its message to be spread) literacy was shared--slowly at first then like a cleansing wave, rolling over the formerly unwashed masses.
By the time of the American Revolution, America was the most literate society on the face of the earth which was one of the driving forces behind that revolution; It simply could not have happened without the fervor created by the printed word, mass produced by the pamphleteers, then delivered throughout the original 13 colonies and beyond. It is no wonder that the resulting government, from its beginnings, promoted additional literacy through its mandates in favor of public education.
Commercialism was a cornerstone of this increasingly literate society. As literacy increased, so did the commercial potential for publishing and selling the thoughts of others. From the time of Gutenberg on, publishing and the ranks of the literate shared a symbiotic relationship, growing together for four and one-half centuries as cornerstones for the sharing of both democracy and culture.
Radio and its bastard child television emerged about 450 and 500 years, respectively, after the movable-type press. Still dependant upon the written word, they offered an entirely new medium for its dissemination--broadcasts. Ultimately, nearly everyone in the developed world had the potential of receiving these broadcast messages should they choose to do so. Expansive as it was, the democratizing effect of the broadcast medium was inhibited though--even in America, the cradle of modern democracy--by a two very significant factors: government control and costs.
Early on, governments claimed the airwaves and control over them as THEIR domains, limiting the opportunities for access to them. Those who gained access could only do so by meeting the standards established by the government. The meeting of government standards, the costs of doing so and the costs of mass audience broadcasting worked together to produce what was aptly described as the vast wasteland of television programming. The only content available had to have the broad appeal which could only be obtained by targeting the lowest common denominators of the mass audience.
Whatever democratizing effects these mass communication networks might have offered were reduced or eliminated by government control or costs which rendered most of the people to be receivers of information rather than dispersers.
The internet appeared less than a century after the advent of commercial broadcasting. Originally developed as a decentralized communications network for the military and universities--impervious to an attack on a central broadcasting hub--it rapidly evolved into a world wide web. At first only accessible by traditional computers, the world wide web rapidly evolved into a medium accessible by instruments as innocuous as hand-held smart phones.
The democratizing effects of the world wide web and its cheap ease of access are seemingly infinite. Almost everyone in the developed world and many in less developed countries can gain the ability to not only receive uncensored messages from around the world, but also to create and disseminate their own messages to anyone who chooses to read, watch or listen to them. The "Arab Spring," as it has cheaply been called, was probably as dependent upon internet communications as the American Revolution was upon printed pamphlets.
I took eons for mankind to develop written language. Maybe half again as long for it to develop the movable-type press for the rapid production of printed materials providing for mass communication. Less than half a millennium to develop electronic broadcasting. Less than half a century to develop the internet. About ten years to develop hand-held devices to access it.
The democratizing effect of uncensored mass communications is directly related to the amount of them. Each of the above paradigm shifts in mass communications provided a meteoric increase in the growth of democracy.
But there is one other aspect of the internet that bodes well for the world to come. The hate and mistrust of others, fanned by governments seeking to gain or justify their tyrannies, becomes far more difficult when individuals relate to their supposed enemies through the sharing of their individual thoughts and cultures.
Maybe I'm viewing the future through rose colored glasses but what I see is a more democratic world, a freer world and one less-prone to war; all as a result of the increased communications afforded by the internet.
As I understood it, he was saying that it really didn't matter what was broadcast; Since viewers were so enamored with the concept of images broadcast over thin air appearing in their homes, they would watch whatever crap was on "the tube." Gilligan's Island was actually a study conducted by University of Chicago sociologists to confirm or disprove McLuhan's theory. It was proven beyond a doubt.
Of even more importance, however, is the fact that unless it appeared to have commercial potential, Gilligan's Island wouldn't have ever appeared in the first place. And unless it delivered commercial value, it would not have remained in production for nearly 100 episodes and on the air (in syndication) for nearly half a century. While the medium was the message, it was a damned expensive medium making the message likewise. The obtaining of commercial sponsorship was the prerequisite to the production and broadcast of almost everything.
Since the advent of mass communications, this has pretty much been the way it has worked.
Gutenberg's printing press with movable type, dating back to the early-mid 1400s, permitted virtually anything that could be printed to be mass-produced and massively disseminated. As the masses, however, were largely illiterate at the time, the democratizing influence of open and massive communication--although a great leap forward--was somewhat impeded. The writings of authors of the time--the clergy, the ruling class and landed gentry--could only be read by the readers of the time--the clergy, the ruling class and the landed gentry. Due in no small part to the efforts of the church (which felt a moral imperative for its message to be spread) literacy was shared--slowly at first then like a cleansing wave, rolling over the formerly unwashed masses.
By the time of the American Revolution, America was the most literate society on the face of the earth which was one of the driving forces behind that revolution; It simply could not have happened without the fervor created by the printed word, mass produced by the pamphleteers, then delivered throughout the original 13 colonies and beyond. It is no wonder that the resulting government, from its beginnings, promoted additional literacy through its mandates in favor of public education.
Commercialism was a cornerstone of this increasingly literate society. As literacy increased, so did the commercial potential for publishing and selling the thoughts of others. From the time of Gutenberg on, publishing and the ranks of the literate shared a symbiotic relationship, growing together for four and one-half centuries as cornerstones for the sharing of both democracy and culture.
Radio and its bastard child television emerged about 450 and 500 years, respectively, after the movable-type press. Still dependant upon the written word, they offered an entirely new medium for its dissemination--broadcasts. Ultimately, nearly everyone in the developed world had the potential of receiving these broadcast messages should they choose to do so. Expansive as it was, the democratizing effect of the broadcast medium was inhibited though--even in America, the cradle of modern democracy--by a two very significant factors: government control and costs.
Early on, governments claimed the airwaves and control over them as THEIR domains, limiting the opportunities for access to them. Those who gained access could only do so by meeting the standards established by the government. The meeting of government standards, the costs of doing so and the costs of mass audience broadcasting worked together to produce what was aptly described as the vast wasteland of television programming. The only content available had to have the broad appeal which could only be obtained by targeting the lowest common denominators of the mass audience.
Whatever democratizing effects these mass communication networks might have offered were reduced or eliminated by government control or costs which rendered most of the people to be receivers of information rather than dispersers.
The internet appeared less than a century after the advent of commercial broadcasting. Originally developed as a decentralized communications network for the military and universities--impervious to an attack on a central broadcasting hub--it rapidly evolved into a world wide web. At first only accessible by traditional computers, the world wide web rapidly evolved into a medium accessible by instruments as innocuous as hand-held smart phones.
The democratizing effects of the world wide web and its cheap ease of access are seemingly infinite. Almost everyone in the developed world and many in less developed countries can gain the ability to not only receive uncensored messages from around the world, but also to create and disseminate their own messages to anyone who chooses to read, watch or listen to them. The "Arab Spring," as it has cheaply been called, was probably as dependent upon internet communications as the American Revolution was upon printed pamphlets.
I took eons for mankind to develop written language. Maybe half again as long for it to develop the movable-type press for the rapid production of printed materials providing for mass communication. Less than half a millennium to develop electronic broadcasting. Less than half a century to develop the internet. About ten years to develop hand-held devices to access it.
The democratizing effect of uncensored mass communications is directly related to the amount of them. Each of the above paradigm shifts in mass communications provided a meteoric increase in the growth of democracy.
But there is one other aspect of the internet that bodes well for the world to come. The hate and mistrust of others, fanned by governments seeking to gain or justify their tyrannies, becomes far more difficult when individuals relate to their supposed enemies through the sharing of their individual thoughts and cultures.
Maybe I'm viewing the future through rose colored glasses but what I see is a more democratic world, a freer world and one less-prone to war; all as a result of the increased communications afforded by the internet.
October 12, 2011
A modest proposal for the reduction of unintended firearm murders in the greater Chicago-land area, theend of global warming and a reduction in the trade deficit(requiring only modest assistance from the Obama administration)
It seems as if a week never goes by without the local headlines screaming some variation of the same tragic and disgusting theme: TODDLER SHOT IN HEAD IN DRIVE-BY SHOOTING; INNOCENT BY-STANDER HIT BY BULLET INTENDED FOR GANG MEMBER; FATHER OF THREE KILLED BY BULLET INTENDED FOR GANG MEMBER; ERRANT BULLET KILLS PREGNANT MOTHER; etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Not a recent phenomena this sort of brutality—always gang-related—has continued, unabated, throughout my residence in this area which dates back to 1983; surprising by virtue of Chicago having (had) the strongest anti-private-gun-ownership laws in the U.S.
The gangs’ very existences are dependent upon drugs, prostitution, pent up hostility of young men with nothing better to do, amoral upbringings, unemployment and the simple human need to belong to a group. In the vast majority of cases, drug turf is the root cause of the violence closely followed by claims to a “girl friend.” As is the case with virtually everything, when looking for the ultimate source of a problem, follow the money.
But amongst this depressing news comes a glimmer of hope; The Supreme Court, in one of its more lucid moments, recently overturned Chicago’s anti-gun laws thus permitting law-abiding private citizens possessing a sound mind to also possess private hand-guns which should afford them some degree of protection. “Clearly a step in the correct direction for the rights and protection of the individual,” I proclaimed during a recent sitting with fellow convives at a local tavern.
“Bull-shit,” I was told by one anti-gun friend. He argued (correctly) that private ownership of guns for protection of oneself would do nothing to ensure the safety of unintended victims. These unfortunates” he said, “were not involved in some sort of contest where parity of weaponry was a factor. Defend oneself? They never even knew they were in harm’s way. One instant they were strolling down the street or sitting on their front porch and the next instant they were wounded or dead as the result of violence they never anticipated in which they never participated.”
“Ah-ha,” I proclaimed, “you are absolutely correct but further elaboration of my points are obviously required,” (for some reason I’ve never understood, beer always makes me talk that way). “The immediate root cause of the shootings of unintended victims,” I continued, “is not drugs, prostitution, unemployment, turf-wars, over-population of the ghettos, amorality on the parts of gang members or any some-such.”
“Then what is it, your omnipotence?” the guy to my right asked cynically.
“The immediate root cause of these unintended shootings is one thing and one thing only: piss-poor marksmanship. Which brings me,” I continued, “to my proposal: mandatory shooting range instruction for anyone convicted of any gang-related activity.”
The beers just sat there; the guys just sat there, dumbfounded expressions upon their faces.
Undeterred, I continued: “Think about it. No wonder they don’t hit what they’re shooting at. These guys don’t even hold the guns right; they hold their pistols sideways because that’s the way they came in the box!” No change in the dumbfounded expressions. “When an innocent father of three or a mother pushing a baby buggy up the sidewalk is killed, it is a true tragedy felt by all in the community. If a pimp or pusher gets whacked shooting it out with another pimp or pusher only those immediately connected to the whacked individual feels the pain.”
Still no comment from my companions.
“So here’re the advantages,” I continued, “to teaching these guys how to shoot accurately:
1. an immediate reduction in un-intended victims
2. an immediate reduction in violent gang members
3. an immediate reduction is social welfare costs as many if not most of them are on some sort of government assistance
4. an immediate reduction in the overall crime rate
5. an immediate deduction in the number of unemployed as many or most don’t hold regular jobs
In fact,” I continued, “this program would even reduce unemployment and create new jobs. Shooting instructors will have to be accredited and hired, their ranks drawn from former police officers (who will no longer be needed). Indoor shooting ranges will have to be built ensuring employment for those in the trades. Records will have to be kept requiring clerical and data entry jobs. Computers will have to be sold to keep track. Guns and ammunition will be required helping to sustain our dwindling domestic arms and ammo manufacturing industries.
If ever there was a win-win situation, this is it! I’m outta’ here,” I proclaimed, draining my beer bottle. “I’m going home to write the President. If we can get twenty million dollars for this project, we can create 200 jobs easily! And if we expand this program nationally for a few hundred billion, we can create enough jobs to help end the recession even as we put an end to the tragedies of unintended shooting victims!
In fact,” I continued, another brain-storm materializing from the deepest recesses of my mind, “we can expand this program not only nationally but internationally! Provided with federal research funds, we can begin development of carbon-free gunpowder allowing anyone to shoot all they want without fear of adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere which would contribute to global warming! This will require a lot of research, construction of new manufacturing facilities, the whole shooting match (no pun intended). The armed world will have to come to US for “green” gunpowder helping to balance our trade deficit.”
I left. Unmoved beer bottles still sat in front of my unmoving companions who still wore dumbfounded expressions upon their unmoving faces.
Not a recent phenomena this sort of brutality—always gang-related—has continued, unabated, throughout my residence in this area which dates back to 1983; surprising by virtue of Chicago having (had) the strongest anti-private-gun-ownership laws in the U.S.
The gangs’ very existences are dependent upon drugs, prostitution, pent up hostility of young men with nothing better to do, amoral upbringings, unemployment and the simple human need to belong to a group. In the vast majority of cases, drug turf is the root cause of the violence closely followed by claims to a “girl friend.” As is the case with virtually everything, when looking for the ultimate source of a problem, follow the money.
But amongst this depressing news comes a glimmer of hope; The Supreme Court, in one of its more lucid moments, recently overturned Chicago’s anti-gun laws thus permitting law-abiding private citizens possessing a sound mind to also possess private hand-guns which should afford them some degree of protection. “Clearly a step in the correct direction for the rights and protection of the individual,” I proclaimed during a recent sitting with fellow convives at a local tavern.
“Bull-shit,” I was told by one anti-gun friend. He argued (correctly) that private ownership of guns for protection of oneself would do nothing to ensure the safety of unintended victims. These unfortunates” he said, “were not involved in some sort of contest where parity of weaponry was a factor. Defend oneself? They never even knew they were in harm’s way. One instant they were strolling down the street or sitting on their front porch and the next instant they were wounded or dead as the result of violence they never anticipated in which they never participated.”
“Ah-ha,” I proclaimed, “you are absolutely correct but further elaboration of my points are obviously required,” (for some reason I’ve never understood, beer always makes me talk that way). “The immediate root cause of the shootings of unintended victims,” I continued, “is not drugs, prostitution, unemployment, turf-wars, over-population of the ghettos, amorality on the parts of gang members or any some-such.”
“Then what is it, your omnipotence?” the guy to my right asked cynically.
“The immediate root cause of these unintended shootings is one thing and one thing only: piss-poor marksmanship. Which brings me,” I continued, “to my proposal: mandatory shooting range instruction for anyone convicted of any gang-related activity.”
The beers just sat there; the guys just sat there, dumbfounded expressions upon their faces.
Undeterred, I continued: “Think about it. No wonder they don’t hit what they’re shooting at. These guys don’t even hold the guns right; they hold their pistols sideways because that’s the way they came in the box!” No change in the dumbfounded expressions. “When an innocent father of three or a mother pushing a baby buggy up the sidewalk is killed, it is a true tragedy felt by all in the community. If a pimp or pusher gets whacked shooting it out with another pimp or pusher only those immediately connected to the whacked individual feels the pain.”
Still no comment from my companions.
“So here’re the advantages,” I continued, “to teaching these guys how to shoot accurately:
1. an immediate reduction in un-intended victims
2. an immediate reduction in violent gang members
3. an immediate reduction is social welfare costs as many if not most of them are on some sort of government assistance
4. an immediate reduction in the overall crime rate
5. an immediate deduction in the number of unemployed as many or most don’t hold regular jobs
In fact,” I continued, “this program would even reduce unemployment and create new jobs. Shooting instructors will have to be accredited and hired, their ranks drawn from former police officers (who will no longer be needed). Indoor shooting ranges will have to be built ensuring employment for those in the trades. Records will have to be kept requiring clerical and data entry jobs. Computers will have to be sold to keep track. Guns and ammunition will be required helping to sustain our dwindling domestic arms and ammo manufacturing industries.
If ever there was a win-win situation, this is it! I’m outta’ here,” I proclaimed, draining my beer bottle. “I’m going home to write the President. If we can get twenty million dollars for this project, we can create 200 jobs easily! And if we expand this program nationally for a few hundred billion, we can create enough jobs to help end the recession even as we put an end to the tragedies of unintended shooting victims!
In fact,” I continued, another brain-storm materializing from the deepest recesses of my mind, “we can expand this program not only nationally but internationally! Provided with federal research funds, we can begin development of carbon-free gunpowder allowing anyone to shoot all they want without fear of adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere which would contribute to global warming! This will require a lot of research, construction of new manufacturing facilities, the whole shooting match (no pun intended). The armed world will have to come to US for “green” gunpowder helping to balance our trade deficit.”
I left. Unmoved beer bottles still sat in front of my unmoving companions who still wore dumbfounded expressions upon their unmoving faces.
A modest proposal for the reduction of unintended firearm murders in the greater Chicago-land area, theend of global warming and a reduction in the trade deficit(requiring only modest assistance from the Obama administration)
It seems as if a week never goes by without the local headlines screaming some variation of the same tragic and disgusting theme: TODDLER SHOT IN HEAD IN DRIVE-BY SHOOTING; INNOCENT BY-STANDER HIT BY BULLET INTENDED FOR GANG MEMBER; FATHER OF THREE KILLED BY BULLET INTENDED FOR GANG MEMBER; ERRANT BULLET KILLS PREGNANT MOTHER; etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Not a recent phenomena this sort of brutality—always gang-related—has continued, unabated, throughout my residence in this area which dates back to 1983; surprising by virtue of Chicago having (had) the strongest anti-private-gun-ownership laws in the U.S.
The gangs’ very existences are dependent upon drugs, prostitution, pent up hostility of young men with nothing better to do, amoral upbringings, unemployment and the simple human need to belong to a group. In the vast majority of cases, drug turf is the root cause of the violence closely followed by claims to a “girl friend.” As is the case with virtually everything, when looking for the ultimate source of a problem, follow the money.
But amongst this depressing news comes a glimmer of hope; The Supreme Court, in one of its more lucid moments, recently overturned Chicago’s anti-gun laws thus permitting law-abiding private citizens possessing a sound mind to also possess private hand-guns which should afford them some degree of protection. “Clearly a step in the correct direction for the rights and protection of the individual,” I proclaimed during a recent sitting with fellow convives at a local tavern.
“Bull-shit,” I was told by one anti-gun friend. He argued (correctly) that private ownership of guns for protection of oneself would do nothing to ensure the safety of unintended victims. These unfortunates” he said, “were not involved in some sort of contest where parity of weaponry was a factor. Defend oneself? They never even knew they were in harm’s way. One instant they were strolling down the street or sitting on their front porch and the next instant they were wounded or dead as the result of violence they never anticipated in which they never participated.”
“Ah-ha,” I proclaimed, “you are absolutely correct but further elaboration of my points are obviously required,” (for some reason I’ve never understood, beer always makes me talk that way). “The immediate root cause of the shootings of unintended victims,” I continued, “is not drugs, prostitution, unemployment, turf-wars, over-population of the ghettos, amorality on the parts of gang members or any some-such.”
“Then what is it, your omnipotence?” the guy to my right asked cynically.
“The immediate root cause of these unintended shootings is one thing and one thing only: piss-poor marksmanship. Which brings me,” I continued, “to my proposal: mandatory shooting range instruction for anyone convicted of any gang-related activity.”
The beers just sat there; the guys just sat there, dumbfounded expressions upon their faces.
Undeterred, I continued: “Think about it. No wonder they don’t hit what they’re shooting at. These guys don’t even hold the guns right; they hold their pistols sideways because that’s the way they came in the box!” No change in the dumbfounded expressions. “When an innocent father of three or a mother pushing a baby buggy up the sidewalk is killed, it is a true tragedy felt by all in the community. If a pimp or pusher gets whacked shooting it out with another pimp or pusher only those immediately connected to the whacked individual feels the pain.”
Still no comment from my companions.
“So here’re the advantages,” I continued, “to teaching these guys how to shoot accurately:
1. an immediate reduction in un-intended victims
2. an immediate reduction in violent gang members
3. an immediate reduction is social welfare costs as many if not most of them are on some sort of government assistance
4. an immediate reduction in the overall crime rate
5. an immediate deduction in the number of unemployed as many or most don’t hold regular jobs
In fact,” I continued, “this program would even reduce unemployment and create new jobs. Shooting instructors will have to be accredited and hired, their ranks drawn from former police officers (who will no longer be needed). Indoor shooting ranges will have to be built ensuring employment for those in the trades. Records will have to be kept requiring clerical and data entry jobs. Computers will have to be sold to keep track. Guns and ammunition will be required helping to sustain our dwindling domestic arms and ammo manufacturing industries.
If ever there was a win-win situation, this is it! I’m outta’ here,” I proclaimed, draining my beer bottle. “I’m going home to write the President. If we can get twenty million dollars for this project, we can create 200 jobs easily! And if we expand this program nationally for a few hundred billion, we can create enough jobs to help end the recession even as we put an end to the tragedies of unintended shooting victims!
In fact,” I continued, another brain-storm materializing from the deepest recesses of my mind, “we can expand this program not only nationally but internationally! Provided with federal research funds, we can begin development of carbon-free gunpowder allowing anyone to shoot all they want without fear of adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere which would contribute to global warming! This will require a lot of research, construction of new manufacturing facilities, the whole shooting match (no pun intended). The armed world will have to come to US for “green” gunpowder helping to balance our trade deficit.”
I left. Unmoved beer bottles still sat in front of my unmoving companions who still wore dumbfounded expressions upon their unmoving faces.
Not a recent phenomena this sort of brutality—always gang-related—has continued, unabated, throughout my residence in this area which dates back to 1983; surprising by virtue of Chicago having (had) the strongest anti-private-gun-ownership laws in the U.S.
The gangs’ very existences are dependent upon drugs, prostitution, pent up hostility of young men with nothing better to do, amoral upbringings, unemployment and the simple human need to belong to a group. In the vast majority of cases, drug turf is the root cause of the violence closely followed by claims to a “girl friend.” As is the case with virtually everything, when looking for the ultimate source of a problem, follow the money.
But amongst this depressing news comes a glimmer of hope; The Supreme Court, in one of its more lucid moments, recently overturned Chicago’s anti-gun laws thus permitting law-abiding private citizens possessing a sound mind to also possess private hand-guns which should afford them some degree of protection. “Clearly a step in the correct direction for the rights and protection of the individual,” I proclaimed during a recent sitting with fellow convives at a local tavern.
“Bull-shit,” I was told by one anti-gun friend. He argued (correctly) that private ownership of guns for protection of oneself would do nothing to ensure the safety of unintended victims. These unfortunates” he said, “were not involved in some sort of contest where parity of weaponry was a factor. Defend oneself? They never even knew they were in harm’s way. One instant they were strolling down the street or sitting on their front porch and the next instant they were wounded or dead as the result of violence they never anticipated in which they never participated.”
“Ah-ha,” I proclaimed, “you are absolutely correct but further elaboration of my points are obviously required,” (for some reason I’ve never understood, beer always makes me talk that way). “The immediate root cause of the shootings of unintended victims,” I continued, “is not drugs, prostitution, unemployment, turf-wars, over-population of the ghettos, amorality on the parts of gang members or any some-such.”
“Then what is it, your omnipotence?” the guy to my right asked cynically.
“The immediate root cause of these unintended shootings is one thing and one thing only: piss-poor marksmanship. Which brings me,” I continued, “to my proposal: mandatory shooting range instruction for anyone convicted of any gang-related activity.”
The beers just sat there; the guys just sat there, dumbfounded expressions upon their faces.
Undeterred, I continued: “Think about it. No wonder they don’t hit what they’re shooting at. These guys don’t even hold the guns right; they hold their pistols sideways because that’s the way they came in the box!” No change in the dumbfounded expressions. “When an innocent father of three or a mother pushing a baby buggy up the sidewalk is killed, it is a true tragedy felt by all in the community. If a pimp or pusher gets whacked shooting it out with another pimp or pusher only those immediately connected to the whacked individual feels the pain.”
Still no comment from my companions.
“So here’re the advantages,” I continued, “to teaching these guys how to shoot accurately:
1. an immediate reduction in un-intended victims
2. an immediate reduction in violent gang members
3. an immediate reduction is social welfare costs as many if not most of them are on some sort of government assistance
4. an immediate reduction in the overall crime rate
5. an immediate deduction in the number of unemployed as many or most don’t hold regular jobs
In fact,” I continued, “this program would even reduce unemployment and create new jobs. Shooting instructors will have to be accredited and hired, their ranks drawn from former police officers (who will no longer be needed). Indoor shooting ranges will have to be built ensuring employment for those in the trades. Records will have to be kept requiring clerical and data entry jobs. Computers will have to be sold to keep track. Guns and ammunition will be required helping to sustain our dwindling domestic arms and ammo manufacturing industries.
If ever there was a win-win situation, this is it! I’m outta’ here,” I proclaimed, draining my beer bottle. “I’m going home to write the President. If we can get twenty million dollars for this project, we can create 200 jobs easily! And if we expand this program nationally for a few hundred billion, we can create enough jobs to help end the recession even as we put an end to the tragedies of unintended shooting victims!
In fact,” I continued, another brain-storm materializing from the deepest recesses of my mind, “we can expand this program not only nationally but internationally! Provided with federal research funds, we can begin development of carbon-free gunpowder allowing anyone to shoot all they want without fear of adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere which would contribute to global warming! This will require a lot of research, construction of new manufacturing facilities, the whole shooting match (no pun intended). The armed world will have to come to US for “green” gunpowder helping to balance our trade deficit.”
I left. Unmoved beer bottles still sat in front of my unmoving companions who still wore dumbfounded expressions upon their unmoving faces.
July 27, 2011
Racism: alive and well in Chicago "flash mobs?"
You may have seen it on national news; a “flash mob” as it was called by the Chicago press. Not one of the currently-popular “flash dances” or “flash choruses” where a group of seemingly unrelated passers-by suddenly begin a coordinated performance in a highly visible public place. Rather, this was apparently a coordinated attack in which a large group of seemingly unrelated teenagers and young men suddenly singled out victims, descended upon them without warning, beat and robbed (or attempted to rob) them of their I-phones and other valuables.
The victims, three of them in fairly rapid sequence, were Caucasian Americans and a Japanese tourist. The perpetrators were all black. The attackers, rather than operating under the cover of darkness on deserted street corners, carried out their crimes in broad daylight in the heart of the Chicago loop, amongst crowds of high-end shoppers and well-to-do businessmen.
It’s the type of senseless violence which happens daily in the seedier areas of Chicago. In many such cases, it is black-on-black crime confined to predominantly black neighborhoods. Only this time, it struck at the largely white heart of Chicago.
The outrage from City Hall and the press was predictable and quick in coming. Such violence and such savagery would not be tolerated. The manhunt (and boy-hunt) began immediately and within what seemed just hours, the first of the perpetrators had been gathered in and were cooling their heels in jail. That the “perps” would finger their accomplices was a given.
But with indignation over the crimes hanging like smog in the summer air, perceptions of the events as reported by Chicago newspapers, quickly divided along deep racial fault-lines—the types that threaten an earthquake when the separate plates move in opposite directions.
Essentially, there were two positions taken by many Chicagoans, journalists and laymen alike, and they were largely taken along racial lines:
1. THE WHITE VIEW: This had been a heinous, racially motivated attack, detrimental to the image and economy of Chicago. It could not and would not be tolerated. An example needed to be made of those arrested to deter repeat performances. They needed to be locked up for a long time.
2. THE BLACK VIEW: This is the same type of violence that plagues the black ghettos on a daily basis. The only difference is, when it happens there, as black-on-black crime confined to predominantly black neighborhoods, none of the Chicago power elite (read: the Office of the Mayor, the Police Department or the wealthy white folks in the center-city) seem to care. Now that THEIR turf has been threatened, it is suddenly an issue. Why hadn’t it been before?
Sadly, there is credibility to both disparate positions.
What is even sadder, is that such crimes are ever committed irrespective of the races of the victims or the perpetrators.
What is saddest of all, though, is that in this “enlightened” day and age, our considerations are still so dependent upon our race and the race of those we’re considering.
The victims, three of them in fairly rapid sequence, were Caucasian Americans and a Japanese tourist. The perpetrators were all black. The attackers, rather than operating under the cover of darkness on deserted street corners, carried out their crimes in broad daylight in the heart of the Chicago loop, amongst crowds of high-end shoppers and well-to-do businessmen.
It’s the type of senseless violence which happens daily in the seedier areas of Chicago. In many such cases, it is black-on-black crime confined to predominantly black neighborhoods. Only this time, it struck at the largely white heart of Chicago.
The outrage from City Hall and the press was predictable and quick in coming. Such violence and such savagery would not be tolerated. The manhunt (and boy-hunt) began immediately and within what seemed just hours, the first of the perpetrators had been gathered in and were cooling their heels in jail. That the “perps” would finger their accomplices was a given.
But with indignation over the crimes hanging like smog in the summer air, perceptions of the events as reported by Chicago newspapers, quickly divided along deep racial fault-lines—the types that threaten an earthquake when the separate plates move in opposite directions.
Essentially, there were two positions taken by many Chicagoans, journalists and laymen alike, and they were largely taken along racial lines:
1. THE WHITE VIEW: This had been a heinous, racially motivated attack, detrimental to the image and economy of Chicago. It could not and would not be tolerated. An example needed to be made of those arrested to deter repeat performances. They needed to be locked up for a long time.
2. THE BLACK VIEW: This is the same type of violence that plagues the black ghettos on a daily basis. The only difference is, when it happens there, as black-on-black crime confined to predominantly black neighborhoods, none of the Chicago power elite (read: the Office of the Mayor, the Police Department or the wealthy white folks in the center-city) seem to care. Now that THEIR turf has been threatened, it is suddenly an issue. Why hadn’t it been before?
Sadly, there is credibility to both disparate positions.
What is even sadder, is that such crimes are ever committed irrespective of the races of the victims or the perpetrators.
What is saddest of all, though, is that in this “enlightened” day and age, our considerations are still so dependent upon our race and the race of those we’re considering.
An inconvenient marriage
They were an unlikely couple. Brought together by the random happenstance of life, they were now trying to forge through difficult times together. One was financially successful; the other not so much. For neither was it a first relationship, as both had previous trysts behind them.
For one of them the progeny of those previous trysts—although representing disparate levels of social and financial strata—were generally considered successful, at least economically. From a young age, they had been taught self-sufficiency. Imbued with the philosophy that they were each personally responsible for their own fate while sharing responsibility for the welfare of their family, they had worked hard at school, hard at home and hard at after-school jobs. This had provided them with spending money above and beyond their allowances.
The children of the other viewed life differently. Their hearts bled as they looked about them seeing neighbors who had less than what was needed. They also bled when they looked further afield and saw others who had more than they had. Although some of these siblings excelled in school many did not. Although some were able to land after school jobs, many did not. When their educations and jobs were deficient, they had been taught that they were victims of circumstances beyond their control.
When the two married and their families merged, rivalry between the children was inevitable. The siblings with less wanted more of the family pie. Since they were one family now, they felt entitled to it. The children with more, having worked hard and long for what they had, didn’t feel they should have to give up what they had accumulated.
Since they were now all one family, the parent of those with less felt an obligation; using the joint credit card now shared with the spouse, purchases were made in an attempt to provide more equivalence between the groups. This continued happily for several years until two devastating circumstances occurred at the same time: 1) the economy tanked reducing the entire family’s income and 2) the credit card had been so over-used that the family could not afford even the interest payments it required.
The side of the family that had more wealth had a fiscally sound response to the crisis: stop using the credit card and reduce spending.
The side of the family that had less wealth had an impassioned response: increase the credit card’s limits and share more of the remaining wealth.
So what is the traditional greeting when two people are wed?
Let’s see now: bon voyage is for vacation departures; merry…merry anything doesn’t seem to work; happy…is no better. So what is it? Oh, well.
"Best wishes" Barack and John
For one of them the progeny of those previous trysts—although representing disparate levels of social and financial strata—were generally considered successful, at least economically. From a young age, they had been taught self-sufficiency. Imbued with the philosophy that they were each personally responsible for their own fate while sharing responsibility for the welfare of their family, they had worked hard at school, hard at home and hard at after-school jobs. This had provided them with spending money above and beyond their allowances.
The children of the other viewed life differently. Their hearts bled as they looked about them seeing neighbors who had less than what was needed. They also bled when they looked further afield and saw others who had more than they had. Although some of these siblings excelled in school many did not. Although some were able to land after school jobs, many did not. When their educations and jobs were deficient, they had been taught that they were victims of circumstances beyond their control.
When the two married and their families merged, rivalry between the children was inevitable. The siblings with less wanted more of the family pie. Since they were one family now, they felt entitled to it. The children with more, having worked hard and long for what they had, didn’t feel they should have to give up what they had accumulated.
Since they were now all one family, the parent of those with less felt an obligation; using the joint credit card now shared with the spouse, purchases were made in an attempt to provide more equivalence between the groups. This continued happily for several years until two devastating circumstances occurred at the same time: 1) the economy tanked reducing the entire family’s income and 2) the credit card had been so over-used that the family could not afford even the interest payments it required.
The side of the family that had more wealth had a fiscally sound response to the crisis: stop using the credit card and reduce spending.
The side of the family that had less wealth had an impassioned response: increase the credit card’s limits and share more of the remaining wealth.
So what is the traditional greeting when two people are wed?
Let’s see now: bon voyage is for vacation departures; merry…merry anything doesn’t seem to work; happy…is no better. So what is it? Oh, well.
"Best wishes" Barack and John
